Skip to main content

View Diary: Senators Heitkamp and Manchin float diplomatic alternative to military strikes on Syria (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I should have been more diplomatic in my phrasing, you are right.   Better to say, "people who want to do nothing, which will in turn greenlight further attacks". More courteous I suppose.  Sorry for that

    •  When you lie about (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YucatanMan, tytalus, onionjim

      "what people want," it does not make it better.

      This is actually "doing something" even though it is not the thing YOU prefer.

      Some people want an invasion, which you may or may not want.

      Are you GREBNLIGHTING chemical gas attacks if you don;t want to invade Syria?

      Would it be acceptable to call anyone who does not agree with invading Syria as greenlighting chem weapons attacks?

      Your argument in defense of this rhetoric is repugnant, and worse, stupid.

      •  Is it doing something? (0+ / 0-)

        Because it is not anything new.  The administration has been trying to get a political solution for years, while threatening military force if CW are used.   Here this proposal is to do the same, except trying to get a convention signed instead of something more productive.  Essentially it is a more of the same approach that translates into nothing meaningful. Thus, it seems much more like a fig leaf for inaction since presumably everyone is aware that this approach is precisely what was being done but failed.  

        Before: don't use CW or we will attack.  Result: attacks

        Now: sign a treaty saying you won't use CW or we will attack. Result: we don't know, but given the last two years, I don't see how this is seen as credible

        You can see how this appears to be little more than a stalling tactic that has roughly been shown to fail.  Here, we promise to attack and this time we really mean it?   You can see why I am so skeptical

        •  IT is doing something (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan, tytalus, DeadHead

          MAybe the wrong something.

          Maybe a futile something.

          The problem with you is you dpn't limit your argument to "you are wrong and the conseguences of your wrongness could be devastating."

          I mean folks will say that to you I imagine. Certainly I did when Kerry made his ridiculous Munich Moment comment.

          You went WAY beyond that.

          I'm shocked I have to explain it to you.

    •  The greenlight terminology is a false argument (5+ / 0-)

      and not based on any factual review of history.

      It's simply a slur. You want to use slurs against people and you're poking about trying to find a way of accusing people of FAVORING the use of chemical weapons.  

      It's an odious form of argument. There's no courteous way to falsely accuse people of favoring the use of chemical weapons.

      And your reasoning that the failure of the USA to punish CW use constitutes a "greenlight" is a false conclusion.

      The rest of the world outside the USA also has morals and values. Everything does not rest upon our action or inaction, as much as mistaken America-centric thinkers want to believe it does.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 09:56:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site